Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses that the response reports the DESIRED state because Plesk only acknowledges the command, that an unmentioned list is left unchanged while a supplied list fully replaces the prior one (data-loss risk), and that empty values are rejected rather than reported as success. This is exactly the kind of cache-behavior and mutation-risk context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then verification, then list semantics — a logical order. It is somewhat long and includes advisory prose ('statt den Kunden aus dem Gedächtnis zu fragen'), but nearly every sentence carries operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the desired-vs-actual response caveat, verification path, list replacement semantics, and empty-value rejection. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the replace-vs-untouched semantics of extensions/friendly_domains and the rejection of empty values. It does not, however, restate syntax rules that the schema already covers in detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Schaltet den Hotlink-Schutz einer Domain ein oder aus', and immediately scopes the effect (fremde Websites können Dateien nicht einbinden). It clearly separates itself from the read-side sibling get_hotlink_protection, which is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_hotlink_protection to verify results and to read current lists before writing, use friendly_domains to whitelist intended embeds, and it states the exclusions (cannot empty via this path, must use the customer area). Names concrete alternatives and conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.